Here are a couple of points I want to make. First and
foremost, you could tell from the President's remarks today that he's
absolutely delighted with the employment report we got from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics today. It confirms a very strong performance of
this economy during his tenure as President. It reflects some of the
key arguments that he's been making about the 21st century.

But you will see him, as you did here at the community
college today, increasingly make the case that we have to build on this
record of economic progress by investing in education for the future.
The 21st century economy has to pay higher wages to the American work
force. And the President firmly believes that higher earning goes hand
in hand with higher learning, which is why we are putting such a stress
on the investments we would make in an additional 13th, 14th year of
education, in preparing our kids for a lifetime of learning by getting
them literate by the third grade, doing everything we can to make our
schools work by improving their infrastructure through school
construction, by making them drug-free, by making them gang-free, by
instilling a sense of discipline through curfews and school uniforms --
all these things tied together in how we build on the economic record of
the last four years.

The President's economic program, adopted in 1993, was
very much about the macroeconomy -- putting America's fiscal house in
order and creating the fundamentals of a very strong and growing
economy. The President, in the next four years if reelected, would
devote attention to the microeconomy -- how do we raise family income,
how do we assure that workers are in jobs in which they can be more
productive, in which they can earn higher incomes.

So these things, I think, are part of what excites him
about a 21st century economy that really will present unparalleled
opportunities for prosperity amongst the American people. Again, I
would stress also the statement that Dr. Stiglitz put out today that the
good news today clearly does not raise inflationary fears. Corporate
profits remain strong. The GDB report from last week showed that
profits are as high as they've been in 28 years, and the increase in
trend in labor costs remains below the current rates of price increase,
which is a key factor in measuring what the inflationary prospects are
within the economy.

In short, this is not an economy that's overheating, it's
an economy that has measured strong steady growth that is producing the
exciting kind of employment numbers that we're seeing today.

Q Labor costs remain lower than what? I'm sorry.

MR. MCCURRY: They remain below current rates of price
increase. So in other words, the rise in labor costs that are
associated with the growing economy are below those of the general rate
of inflation in the economy, which is a good indicator because it means
that we can provide both job growth and wage growth simultaneously
without raising inflationary fears.

And your follow-up question is, am I saying that for the
benefit of the Federal Reserve. Of course not, because we don't comment
on their -- any kind of decision-making.

The second thing -- we've put out a piece of paper with a
very important statement from the President on NATO expansion. A short
while ago, Secretary of State Christopher, in Stuttgart, Germany, gave a
major foreign policy address entitled -- well, it was an address on the
50th anniversary of the Speech of Hope, which was former Secretary of
State James Burns* landmark address in 1946 that declared that Germany
would be a part of the future of Europe.

In the President's statement he has two pieces of news:
one, that he will call -- the United States is calling a NATO summit for
next year. Obviously this President would hope to participate on behalf
of the United States, but more importantly, the work of this summit
would be to begin the accession talks that would bring the first group,
Partners for Peace, into the NATO Alliance. That is very significant
news, the President indicating that is his purpose for this summit. The
Secretary of State today, in a major foreign policy address in Europe,
sending the signal that we are going to begin the process of enlarging
NATO with the summit meeting next year.

Q Did you advance that speech with the Russians? Did you
let them know ahead of time?

MR. MCCURRY: This speech, as you can tell from the
statement itself which also pledges -- which also suggests that at this
summit we would confirm the creation of a very broad and deep
partnership between NATO and Russia -- you can well imagine that we have
worked carefully within the NATO alliance and within the Partnership for
Peace to talk about the opportunities that exist.

Q First of all, would this summit meeting have occurred
anyway, or this would not have happened if Christopher hadn't called for
it? And, number two, is there a specific date when these countries
would actually be --

MR. MCCURRY: The purpose of the summit is to really
establish the who and the when. Up until now, as you all know, we've
really been talking about the how and the why -- why do we need to
expand NATO, how would we do it and what is the process. You're all
familiar with the Partnership for Peace program, with the close
affiliation that some of the central and East European countries have
with NATO that we've been developing through the Partnership for Peace
program. Part of this summit will, in fact, be about enhancing the
Partnership for Peace so that those who are not selected for the first
round of admissions to NATO would see their opportunities for
involvement with NATO step up.

We did not set a date. It is true, Mara -- it would be
true that since the last NATO summit was in, I think January of 1994
that they occur on balance about once every three years, so that it
would be an expected thing to have a NATO summit sometime soon, but more
importantly, by declaring that this is a summit that will really begin
the process of NATO enlargement where we'll really put a very key focus
on what the work will be.

Now, a lot of work will go into this; there is a NATO
defense ministerial meeting that's about to happen soon -- Mary Ellen,
you don't know -- sometime soon there will be a defense foreign
ministers ministerial meeting in December. That will be critical in
sort of setting the table for a head of state summit next year.

Q Your earlier answer about whether this was vetted with
the Russians -- is that down at the ambassadorial level? Is there any
reaction at all?

MR. MCCURRY: The question of NATO is of such a
high-profile concern in the bilateral relationship it is regularly
reviewed at a variety of levels. This particular speech I don't know
whether it came at the embassy level or elsewhere, but we've had kind of
an ongoing series of dialogues with the Russians on the subject.

Q So this would not have come as a surprise to Russia?

MR. MCCURRY: It would not come as a surprise that as we
move into 1997, the actual work of who and when would be the focus of
NATO's work plan.

Q Did somebody specifically tell the Russians we're going
to propose a meeting next week?

MR. MCCURRY: In some fashion or other, the speech was
brought to their attention.

Q Any reaction?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't have a reported reaction.

Q Pardon me if you've already answered this, but will this
meeting take place without regard to the election results this year?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the United States government is
formally proposing it, and the intent of the government would be to
conduct the summit meeting. But any newly-elected president could
review that decision, of course.

Q Mike, how was the President told about this helicopter
mishap today, or has he been told yet?

MR. MCCURRY: He got an update from Deputy Chief of Staff
Evelyn Lieberman based on the information we have from our military
liaison, Al Sullivan, who travels with us.

Q Where did that happen?

MR. MCCURRY: It just happened right after the speech here
at Valencia.

Q He didn't know about it --

MR. MCCURRY: He had already gone out on stage when we
first got word of this.

Q Has he had a reaction yet that we could --

MR. MCCURRY: Well, he's very concerned about -- trying to
find out more about the status of crew. As I said earlier, DOD Public
Affairs Ken Bacon is planning to brief in about 20 minutes and they're
developing information as fast as they can. I am now told that
apparently -- and this is again preliminary information subject to
confirmation -- there may have been six on board the helicopter, and I'm
told that they all escaped under their own power. And we are checking
that to see if any of them suffered any type of injury.

Q Will he visit them?

Q Mike, this happened as they were landing or taking off?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm told that it was -- the helicopter was in
the process of landing.

Q Is there any concern at the White House about the
presidential support aircraft? What happened in Wyoming, I believe
there was an accident a couple of months ago in Connecticut, a training
mission --

MR. MCCURRY: Well, a great deal of care goes into the
security of these aircraft, and we have confidence and faith in the
Defense Department's record of air safety when it comes to these
missions. There is always risk involved in air travel and we believe
it's a very minimal risk.

Q -- that were slightly injured?

MR. MCCURRY: I didn't say they were slightly injured, I
said we're checking to see if there may have been injuries and we're
developing more information on their condition.

Q Will he go visit them?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm not sure where they are right now, so
we'd have to determine the facts.

Q -- how many Partners For Peace are there? And is Russia
formally in the Partnership For Peace at this point?

MR. MCCURRY: Russia is in the Partnership For Peace and it
has what we call a parallel relationship that is developed with

NATO that allows for a broad cross-section of involvement both through
Partnership For Peace and in our dialogue. Of the former Warsaw Pact
countries that are now Partners For Peace, 32 sounds about right. We
can -- Mary Ellen can double-check that. These are the former Central
and East European countries that were, most of them, members of the
Warsaw Pact.

Q Mike, has the President been informed of the story that
Dick Morris had an illegitimate child, and has he had any comment
particularly in line with the fact that we've all heard the President go
out and talk to young people and urge them not to have illegitimate
children and say what a bad thing --

MR. MCCURRY: He's been made aware of the report. He has
no knowledge of whether it is true, or not.

Q And one other thing --

Q What was his reaction?

MR. MCCURRY: He said, is it true, and we said, we don't
know.

Q And one other thing that's being alleged is that Dick
Morris told his friend that Mrs. Clinton was responsible for the
ordering of FBI files --

MR. MCCURRY: Rita, if you want to use the Star or tabloids
to base your questions, I can try to help you. But I don't have any
information on that.

Q A number of the things that have been raised have been
accurate, so I think that it's, unfortunately, legitimate to raise them.

MR. MCCURRY: You know more about it than I do then.

Q This isn't from the Star, but it's Dick Morris. How
does he feel about him signing a book contract months ago?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't think anyone is particularly wild
about that. I think that we -- if he had a financial interest in a book
project we believe it should have been disclosed.

Q What was the President's reaction to that?

MR. MCCURRY: About as I just indicated.

Anything else? Other things?

Q Mike, doesn't he feel any kind of sense of betrayal
here? I mean, this guy was sitting there --

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know what he's going to write in the
book, do you?

Q Are you thinking back of what things you might have said
in his presence?

MR. MCCURRY: I mean, it might be a political science
textbook. He's very fond of elaborating on his political theories, so
it might be destined for political science courses. I don't know what
kind of book it is.

Q Was this the first time he knew about --

MR. MCCURRY: We told him on the plane last night that it
had been reported on several news accounts that there was a book.

Q He didn't know before that? In other words, Morris had
never told him privately?

MR. MCCURRY: We still don't know what the terms of any
book arrangement that he has are.

Q On the unemployment stats, do you know what the rate was
that he inherited from Bush?

MR. MCCURRY: We're checking. I seem to remember it was
7.7 percent. It was close to 8 percent and now it's down to roughly 5
percent, and we can get the exact number.

Q -- choppers that were involved in this incident, do you
know which ones they were? Were they the ones ferrying the press
yesterday?

MR. MCCURRY: We are told, but I don't have confirmation
again, preliminary information that the one that apparently crashed and
burned at Orlando Executive Airport was one of the CH46Es that
transported members of the press yesterday in and around Miami.

Q The second incident --

MR. MCCURRY: There was a second incident involving a CH53,
I believe -- that's the preliminary information I have -- for
precautionary reasons made a landing in a farm field somewhere south of
Orlando to check a hydraulic question, and there are apparently no --
that's not seen as a major incident.

Q Do you have a better explanation as to why the President
had to cancel this event on Saturday?

MR. MCCURRY: As I told a lot of people last night, it's
real simple -- and Joe can chime in here, because it involved both a
campaign and a White House review. The President made the assumption
that as Commander-In-Chief -- or the White House made the assumption on
behalf of the President that, as Commander-In-Chief he can christen a
new aircraft carrier, and that could be an official event that his
official duties would allow.

Upon closer review by Clinton-Gore '96 counsel and White
House Legal Counsel, it was determined that in this period now in which
he is the official candidate of the Democratic Party up until the
election, that all costs associated with his travel are deemed political
costs, and thus events that are held that he attends are deemed to be
political events. The exceptions for that involve national security
matters; if he had to make a foreign trip or something related to
foreign policy and when you're inspecting the damage of natural
disasters. And, no, I don't have any further information on whether he
might do that anytime soon.

Because of that, this christening in Newport News would
have been deemed a political event, and the President felt that that
would put in an impossible situation all of the senior military officers
who are being invited to attend. He cannot ask his senior military
commanders to attend a campaign event on his behalf, and it would have
been, in the eyes of the Federal Election Commission, a campaign event.

In addition to that, the campaign itself would have been
responsible for the costs of the event and they plan, you know, a proper
ceremony for the launch of the new aircraft carrier. They were going to
have a fly-over, they were going to invite a lot of distinguished guests
to be there. They were inviting members of the Truman family to be
there. And we, quite frankly -- I mean, Joe should speak to this -- the
campaign itself could not absorb the costs of that type of event and we
would have no clue. I mean, no one costed it out, I don't think.

In any event, we would have been in a position of trimming
back the event that the Navy and the DOD and others wished to have on
this occasion. So, for all those reasons, but especially in the
President's view because of the position that would put his commanders
in, he felt that he should not go there in his capacity as a candidate.
So he's asked Secretary of Navy John Dalton to represent him.
Secretary Navy Dalton will read a statement from the President.

Q Is there an FEC regulation that only national security
events and only disasters can be attended by the President --

MR. MCCURRY: The advisory opinions, based on
interpretations, those are -- let me make it clear. This was the
interpretation by White House and Clinton-Gore attorneys, based on
advisory opinions from the FEC.

Okay -- 1992 unemployment average was 7.5 percent. In July
and August of 1992 the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent. So that's the
direct comparison -- July-August figure, 7.8 percent; the rate today,
5.1 percent.

Q Can you lay out next week at all in terms of what
substantively he's going to be addressing himself to?

MR. MCCURRY: Mary ELlen will do that for me.

Q When did the President learn about the crash? Was it
after the speech here?

MR. MCCURRY: He was told by Deputy Chief of Staff, Evelyn
Lieberman, just as he concluded his appearance here at Valencia
Community College.

Q We were working the phones so I didn't see it, but I'm
told that he was handed a piece of paper just before he spoke and he
looked "shocked."

MR. MCCURRY: I'll have to check with him. I was told he
was told at the conclusion of the event.

All right, anything else? I'd like Joe to do a little,
kind of wrap-up on the Florida trip, the importance the President
attaches to it and do things political.

I think we're scheduled to depart here in 10 or 15 minutes.

MR. LOCKHART: I'll be very brief. The campaign is very
pleased with the trip to Florida, two days here. We think we've reached
the majority of voters here tonight. The last event in Panama City,
we're going into a place where the President lost by a 2-1 margin in
1992. We believe, especially given the economic news today, that makes
the case of why we plan to be much more competitive. And, as I've said
to some people, if we don't win a plurality there, votes that we won up
there, Senator Dole has to make up other places in the state. And
especially given the local coverage we've gotten over the last day and a
half, the campaign is very pleased.

One note that I've been asked a couple of times on a
national level, there has been a lot of stories and speculation in the
last day due to the shake-up in the Dole campaign, with the new media
advisers, especially given some of the public remarks Mr. Castellanos
has said, offering free advice when he wasn't in Senator Dole's employ,
about having to be nasty to win. We think we're entering a particularly
interesting part of the campaign, which poses what we think will be a
character test to Senator Dole of whether he will continue to fight this
campaign on the issues like it has been until now, or whether he will
resort to going into some of the character assaults and personal -- you
know, insults rather than issues that people like Mr. Castellanos have
been advising when he wasn't in his employ.

Q Mike, just logistically -- and Joe -- what are the
prospects of him going to one of the Carolinas?

MR. MCCURRY: As the President said today, he had
dispatched FEMA Director James Lee Witt to supervise the disaster relief
efforts that are now under way. He will take a recommendation from
James Lee Witt on whether his own presence there would be helpful or
useful or whether it would interfere with any efforts under way. And he
won't make any decision on whether or not to travel there until we get
an on-site recommendation from James Lee.

And there are 26 Partnership for Peace members, which can't
be the entire -- that's not all of the former Warsaw Pact countries
because there were 35 of them -- so there are 24 that have been granted,
24 Partnership for Peace Members currently. They would be the pool
eligible for accession to NATO.

Q Are there 24 or 26? You just said 26.
MR. MCCURRY: I'm sorry, 26, 26, 26.
Q Can I ask one more thing on the helicopter? Who would

be the crew members aboard? They were all passengers, they were all
Marine crew; is that right?

MR. MCCURRY: We understand it was just crew, and we don't
have a passenger list.

Q What about maintenance and operation of the President's
own helicopters?

MR. MCCURRY: The answer I gave at the top of the briefing.

Q Mike, do you know why it was at Orlando Airport? Was it
--

MR. MCCURRY: My understanding is it was refueling en route
to it's next destination. I've heard two things about it's ongoing
destination. One was Quantico, where it is based, I believe; and the
other is that it may have been en route to St. Louis for support of the
President's travel next week. Those are conflicting reports and OSDPA
is ironing those out.

Q Do you expect the President to say anything about the
helicopters?

MR. MCCURRY: No, I don't.

Q Mike, the other helicopter that just landed as a
precautionary thing, is that also a part of the President's support?

MR. MCCURRY: I believe it was, but we're checking on that.
The information about that is a little more sketchy.